We’re All Racists Now

Itâ€™s become pretty much a daily occurrence â€“ one big government statist or another dredging up slavery and racism as THE reason to oppose decentralization, state sovereignty, and when you get right down to it, the federal system created by the Constitution.

â€œAfter all, it was the Tenth Amendment and statesâ€™ rights that protected the institution of slavery. The words â€˜slaveâ€™ or â€˜slaveryâ€™ did not appear in the Constitution. The institution of slavery, the Tenth Amendment and statesâ€™ rights are joined at the hip,â€ Jackson wrote.

I could easily debunk this asinine statement, pointing out the obvious â€“ that the lack of the literal word â€œslaveryâ€ in the Constitution doesnâ€™t prove that the federal government didnâ€™t legally support the institution.Â It did. And Jessie Jackson Jr. surely knows this, as do most junior high history students. Then I could spend a considerable amount of time delving into the history of nullification and state assertion of sovereignty, showing how it was used by northern abolitionists to battle the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

I could tell the story of Joshua Glover, a runaway slave who was freed from prison and ushered along the Underground Railroad to freedom in Canada, and how the state of Wisconsin stood its ground, claiming â€œstateâ€™s rightsâ€ to aid those who helped Glover to freedom. Â I could examine the long list of evils states asserted sovereignty to battle, including child military conscription, free speech violations, unconstitutional tariffs and random deportation of foreign nationals at the presidentâ€™s discretion.

But why bother? Iâ€™ve done this countless times, written volumes and made speeches. People like Jackson simply donâ€™t listen. Their ears remain filled with the Siren Song of racism.

So I am going to simply accept Jacksonâ€™s premise. The Tenth Amendment, state sovereignty and nullification will always remain â€œattached at the hipâ€ to slavery. I, as a proponent of limiting federal power to its constitutionally prescribed limits, must be a racist.

But if I am to truly embrace Jacksonâ€™s reasoning, I must conclude that heâ€™s a racist too.

You see, the Democratic Party and slavery are joined at the hip.

It was, after all, the Democratic Party that supported the institution of slavery leading up to the Civil War. And it was the Democratic Party that embraced the KKK during reconstruction. In fact, the Ku Klux Clan was an informal arm of the Democratic Party in the late 1860s and 1870s. Klansmen not only targeted blacks, they also went after Republican politicians and engaged in voter intimidation. This helped the Democratic Party reestablish itself in the south during the post-war years.

In his book A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990), renowned historian Dr. Eric Foner wrote:

â€œFounded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a reign of terror against Republican leaders black and white.â€

He went on to explain this â€œreign of terror.â€

â€œIn effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.Â It aimed to destroy the Republican Partyâ€™s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.â€

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

The Democratic Partyâ€™s racist ties didnâ€™t end with Reconstruction. It was Democrats who by-and-large opposed the Civil Rights movement in the 1950â€™s and 1960s. Famed segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace was, after all, a Democrat.Â Ninety-six Democratic Congressmen voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Heck, West Virginia favorite son Democrat Robert Byrd was a former Klansman.

Clearly, the Democratic Party sinks its roots deep into the soil of slavery and racism. Dragging with it such a hideous legacy, any reasonable person would have to conclude that Democrats have nothing of value to offer modern America. And obviously, any American taking on the Democratic Party mantel is really engaging in dog-whistle politics.

So why are those who keep using it not called out for creating the distraction? You have above but, for the most part, they get a pass. JJJ's comments were largely ignored. The issues that require the distraction are the ones the race card throwers have no ability to address otherwise. And don't forget Janeane Garofalo, who suggests that blacks should think a certain way based on the color of their skin. And she calls the Tea Party racist? … http://placeitonluckydan.com/2011/08/janeane-garo…

You're right of course. But race makes good politics. And it's the easiest way to "win" an argument without actually debating the real issue. Most people are scared to death to address race. It's like a billy club. So, I just keep on trying to point out the hypocrisy of it all.

You're right of course. But race makes good politics. And it's the easiest way to "win" an argument without actually debating the real issue. Most people are scared to death to address race. It's like a billy club. So, I just keep on trying to point out the hypocrisy of it all.

They actually do this on purpose and very ingeniously in an almost undetectable way. For example, it is not possible by looking at the text of any conservative idea and say it is racist which is why they never say that they are saying something racist. Doing so would make people look at the words and realize the accusation is wrong. However, if you actually say that the feelings or the thoughts that spawn these non-racist ideas are racist in origin you can say that the people are racist without actually having to examine anything that was said. If you say you are against gun control they can say that you have hidden fears of being robbed by a black person therefore people who are against gun control are racist even though the platform of gun freedom contains no racist idea in itself. It is insidious what they do and because it is so cleverly done it makes me wonder if the tactic wasn't developed and used on purpose.

Here is the real brain kicker that might make us realize what the rule of law is. What if nullification was used for racist purpose? Would that make it unconstitutional? Would that make it illegal to do in any way? The answer is no because the only concern government has is whether or not that action of the person living under the law violated the law. If that action did not violate the law then that person (or even state) is allowed to continue to do that action. It isn't until it becomes illegal that the questionable action can be stopped. Whether or not that action is ethical or not the only thing that matters to the government is whether or not it is illegal. The fact that nullification was used for racist purposes in some instances does not alter its legality under the law.

So what the author is saying is that the Democratic view of states rights is racist. That doesn't mean the conservative or libertarian views of states rights are also racist.

How about just accepting that it's folly to expect that the best decisions can only be made inside the DC beltway.

If states do something clearly unconstitutional such as slavery, there is a legitimate federal judiciary to handle that. But if states want to exercise their rights to conduct their business as they see fit, then they should be allowed to.

If Massachusetts wants to provide health care for it's citizens,then it has a right to do so. But this doesn't extend to a federal level. If other states do not want to offer health care, it's the right of the state to create it's own policies.

Let's leave to DC only those things that should be done on a federal level. The big three are defense, foreign policy and the federal judiciary. Everything else should go back to the states, as well as allowing each state to create it's own taxing policy. The states would simply send money to the federal government, based only on it's population of citizens to cover their per-capita share of those federal tasks.

Everything else, building roads, education, parks, environmental policy, heath care or no health care and so on would be paid for with money collected from the citizens of that state. No transferring wealth from one state to another so someone in DC can buy votes.

United States for defense and foreign policy. But free states to create local policies to address the needs, wants and desires of the citizens of that state through their own policy choices.

I wasn't even really meaning to imply that the Democrat view of state sovereignty is racist. The whole piece is really a sort of satire. The point being that it's clearly ridiculous to pillory the entire Democratic Party in 2011 because of actions more than 100 years ago – or even 50 years ago. It's equally ridiculous to oppose state sovereignty in 2011 because actions taken by some people so long ago – especially when they don't even have their history right!